HTML vs. TEXT


             DC Web Women
“Blacklists, Whitelists and Read All Over”
              June 17, 2003

        ...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
© 2003 L-Soft
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003




                    ...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003




                    ...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003


Reasons for preferring...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003


Reasons for preferring...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003


Reasons for preferring...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003


Reasons for preferring...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003


Reasons for preferring...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003


Reasons for preferring...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003


Reasons for preferring...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003


Reasons for preferring...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003


Reasons for preferring...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003


Reasons for preferring...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003


Reasons for preferring...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003


Reasons for preferring...
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003


Reasons for preferring...
Preferred e-mail advertisement formats
        worldwide, Q1 2002- #3


            3%


                 35%            H...
Use of anti-spam filters - #3a
                     Source: Opt-In News, May 2002




 (21%) of consumers use a Spam filt...
Response rates per format- #4
Source: IMT Strategies, Sept. 2001




          Click-Through                       15.60%
...
Other Industry Research #5
Source: Debbie Weil, WordBiz Report, N=300, May 2003


 One-third publish HTML only

 Text-on...
Best practices is a moving target- #6
Source: Jupiter Media Metrix, May 2002


 Best practices for campaigns are a moving...
Anti-Spam filters
Spam report from the anti-spam filter product Spam Assassin

 HTML_FONT_COLOR_RED (0.1 points) BODY: HTML...
HTML vs. Text issues
Attachments blocked by Anti-Spam & Anti-Virus
   filters
 Embedded images are attachments
 Referenc...
HTML vs. Text issues
Design preferences
 Both formats are visually appealing to different groups
 Both formats are easie...
HTML vs. Text issues

Size of message
 Larger size for HTML than for text only messages
 HTML with embedded images is la...
HTML vs. Text issues




                       © 2003 L-Soft
HTML vs. Text issues
Tracking recipient behavior




                              © 2003 L-Soft
HTML vs. Text issues
Tracking recipient behavior
 HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus,
   frequency, date, tim...
HTML vs. Text issues
Tracking recipient behavior
 HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus,
   frequency, date, tim...
HTML vs. Text issues
Tracking recipient behavior
 HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus,
   frequency, date, tim...
HTML vs. Text issues
Tracking recipient behavior
 HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus,
   frequency, date, tim...
HTML vs. Text issues
Tracking recipient behavior
 HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus,
   frequency, date, tim...
HTML vs. Text issues
Tracking recipient behavior
 HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus,
   frequency, date, tim...
Evaluate options




                   © 2003 L-Soft
Evaluate options
   HTML & Text:
     • Offer two separate
       mailing lists if possible
     • Provide recipient with...
Evaluate options
   HTML & Text:
     • Offer two separate
       mailing lists if possible
     • Provide recipient with...
Evaluate options
   HTML & Text:                        Send multi-part messages
     • Offer two separate
       mailin...
Evaluate options
   HTML & Text:                        Send multi-part messages
     • Offer two separate              ...
Evaluate options
   HTML & Text:                        Send multi-part messages
     • Offer two separate              ...
Evaluate options
   HTML & Text:                        Send multi-part messages
     • Offer two separate              ...
Evaluate options
   HTML & Text:                        Send multi-part messages
     • Offer two separate              ...
Evaluate options
   HTML & Text:                        Send multi-part messages
     • Offer two separate              ...
Evaluate options
   HTML & Text:                        Send multi-part messages
     • Offer two separate              ...
Recommendations
1. There is no right or wrong format

2. Determine internal capacity & needs

3. It is all about your reci...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Htmlvstext

201

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
201
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide




  • 45% of casual users compared to 77% of business users have high-speed access




























  • 98-99

  • 104























  • Htmlvstext

    1. 1. HTML vs. TEXT DC Web Women “Blacklists, Whitelists and Read All Over” June 17, 2003 Gabriela Linares VP Marketing © 2003 L-Soft
    2. 2. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954 © 2003 L-Soft
    3. 3. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954 HTML Readability Today: Bible Study Business Yes 87.1% 93.1% Only Partially 7.6% 4.5% No 5.3% 2.4% Respondents 394 468 © 2003 L-Soft
    4. 4. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954 E-Mail Client Program  Casual users:  Business users: Outlook Express 34% Outlook 98/2000/XP 48% AOL 6.0 to 8.0 17% Outlook Express 27% Yahoo! Mail 13% Eudora 11% Outlook 98/2000/XP 12% HotMail 10%  AOL users: 92% of users studied used version 6.0 and higher and could read HTML e-mail © 2003 L-Soft
    5. 5. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954 © 2003 L-Soft
    6. 6. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954 Plain Text Preference Bible Study Business Dial-up Access 24.1% 41.3% Broadband Access 20.3% 17.3% © 2003 L-Soft
    7. 7. © 2003 L-Soft
    8. 8. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954 © 2003 L-Soft
    9. 9. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954  Reasons for HTML preference: © 2003 L-Soft
    10. 10. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954  Reasons for HTML preference: • Readability (78%) © 2003 L-Soft
    11. 11. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954  Reasons for HTML preference: • Readability (78%) • Attractive display (68%) © 2003 L-Soft
    12. 12. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954  Reasons for HTML preference: • Readability (78%) • Attractive display (68%) • Ease of scanning (64%) © 2003 L-Soft
    13. 13. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954  Reasons for HTML preference: • Readability (78%) • Attractive display (68%) • Ease of scanning (64%) • Overall design (64%) © 2003 L-Soft
    14. 14. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954  Reasons for HTML preference: • Readability (78%) • Attractive display (68%) • Ease of scanning (64%) • Overall design (64%) © 2003 L-Soft
    15. 15. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954  Reasons for HTML preference: • Readability (78%) • Attractive display (68%) • Ease of scanning (64%) • Overall design (64%)  Reasons for text preference: © 2003 L-Soft
    16. 16. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954  Reasons for HTML preference: • Readability (78%) • Attractive display (68%) • Ease of scanning (64%) • Overall design (64%)  Reasons for text preference: • Readability (73%) © 2003 L-Soft
    17. 17. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954  Reasons for HTML preference: • Readability (78%) • Attractive display (68%) • Ease of scanning (64%) • Overall design (64%)  Reasons for text preference: • Readability (73%) • Security from viruses (68%) © 2003 L-Soft
    18. 18. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954  Reasons for HTML preference: • Readability (78%) • Attractive display (68%) • Ease of scanning (64%) • Overall design (64%)  Reasons for text preference: • Readability (73%) • Security from viruses (68%) • Ease of saving for future use (63%) © 2003 L-Soft
    19. 19. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954  Reasons for HTML preference: • Readability (78%) • Attractive display (68%) • Ease of scanning (64%) • Overall design (64%)  Reasons for text preference: • Readability (73%) • Security from viruses (68%) • Ease of saving for future use (63%) • Ease of scanning (61%) © 2003 L-Soft
    20. 20. Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954  Reasons for HTML preference: • Readability (78%) • Attractive display (68%) • Ease of scanning (64%) • Overall design (64%)  Reasons for text preference: • Readability (73%) • Security from viruses (68%) • Ease of saving for future use (63%) • Ease of scanning (61%) • Download speed (54%) © 2003 L-Soft
    21. 21. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 © 2003 L-Soft
    22. 22. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 © 2003 L-Soft
    23. 23. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text: © 2003 L-Soft
    24. 24. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text:  Can't read HTML 6% © 2003 L-Soft
    25. 25. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text:  Can't read HTML 6%  Just want the meat without the distractions 32% © 2003 L-Soft
    26. 26. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text:  Can't read HTML 6%  Just want the meat without the distractions 32%  Like to read offline 15% © 2003 L-Soft
    27. 27. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text:  Can't read HTML 6%  Just want the meat without the distractions 32%  Like to read offline 15%  Ads are more intrusive in HTML 22% © 2003 L-Soft
    28. 28. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text:  Can't read HTML 6%  Just want the meat without the distractions 32%  Like to read offline 15%  Ads are more intrusive in HTML 22%  Slow to download 14% © 2003 L-Soft
    29. 29. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text:  Can't read HTML 6%  Just want the meat without the distractions 32%  Like to read offline 15%  Ads are more intrusive in HTML 22%  Slow to download 14%  Other 11% © 2003 L-Soft
    30. 30. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text:  Can't read HTML 6%  Just want the meat without the distractions 32%  Like to read offline 15%  Ads are more intrusive in HTML 22%  Slow to download 14%  Other 11% © 2003 L-Soft
    31. 31. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text:  Can't read HTML 6%  Just want the meat without the distractions 32%  Like to read offline 15%  Ads are more intrusive in HTML 22%  Slow to download 14%  Other 11% Reasons for preferring HTML: © 2003 L-Soft
    32. 32. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text:  Can't read HTML 6%  Just want the meat without the distractions 32%  Like to read offline 15%  Ads are more intrusive in HTML 22%  Slow to download 14%  Other 11% Reasons for preferring HTML:  HTML email can be laid out more effectively 28% © 2003 L-Soft
    33. 33. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text:  Can't read HTML 6%  Just want the meat without the distractions 32%  Like to read offline 15%  Ads are more intrusive in HTML 22%  Slow to download 14%  Other 11% Reasons for preferring HTML:  HTML email can be laid out more effectively 28%  Color can be used 24% © 2003 L-Soft
    34. 34. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text:  Can't read HTML 6%  Just want the meat without the distractions 32%  Like to read offline 15%  Ads are more intrusive in HTML 22%  Slow to download 14%  Other 11% Reasons for preferring HTML:  HTML email can be laid out more effectively 28%  Color can be used 24%  Images can be included 21% © 2003 L-Soft
    35. 35. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text:  Can't read HTML 6%  Just want the meat without the distractions 32%  Like to read offline 15%  Ads are more intrusive in HTML 22%  Slow to download 14%  Other 11% Reasons for preferring HTML:  HTML email can be laid out more effectively 28%  Color can be used 24%  Images can be included 21% © 2003 L-Soft  Ads can be more effective in HTML
    36. 36. Preferred e-mail advertisement formats worldwide, Q1 2002- #3 3% 35% HTML Text 62% Rich Media © 2003 L-Soft
    37. 37. Use of anti-spam filters - #3a Source: Opt-In News, May 2002  (21%) of consumers use a Spam filter within their email messaging programs.  (52%) do not use this type of service and  (27%) are uncertain if they are using a filter feature © 2003 L-Soft
    38. 38. Response rates per format- #4 Source: IMT Strategies, Sept. 2001 Click-Through 15.60% 18.50% Conversion 5.30% 9.00% North HTML Bounce 7.70% 7.40% Text Unsubscribe 3.20% 1.20% 0%5.00% 15.00% 10.00% 20.00% © 2003 L-Soft
    39. 39. Other Industry Research #5 Source: Debbie Weil, WordBiz Report, N=300, May 2003  One-third publish HTML only  Text-only subscribers are typically less than 50% of list recipients  70% survey respondents prefer HTML © 2003 L-Soft
    40. 40. Best practices is a moving target- #6 Source: Jupiter Media Metrix, May 2002  Best practices for campaigns are a moving target, depending on campaign objective.  “There is no one best practice for these factors. Only with testing can an e-mail campaign be fully optimized”  Audience segmentation, message content and e-mail format should be tested prior to rolling out any campaign © 2003 L-Soft
    41. 41. Anti-Spam filters Spam report from the anti-spam filter product Spam Assassin HTML_FONT_COLOR_RED (0.1 points) BODY: HTML font color is red HTML_MESSAGE (0.0 points) BODY: HTML included in message HTML_LINK_CLICK_CAPS (1.1 points) BODY: HTML link text says "CLICK" HTML_FONT_BIG (0.3 points) BODY: FONT Size +2 and up or 3 and up LINES_OF_YELLING (0.0 points) BODY: A WHOLE LINE OF YELLING DETECTED HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE (0.1 points) BODY: HTML link text says "click here" HTML_FONT_COLOR_GRAY (0.1 points) BODY: HTML font color is gray HTML_FONT_COLOR_YELLOW (0.0 points) BODY: HTML font color is yellow © 2003 L-Soft
    42. 42. HTML vs. Text issues Attachments blocked by Anti-Spam & Anti-Virus filters  Embedded images are attachments  Referencing images from web site does not include attachments  A Multi-Part message may include attachments • Multipart/Alternative doesn’t have attachment • Multipart/Mixed has an attachment • Multipart/related has an attachment © 2003 L-Soft
    43. 43. HTML vs. Text issues Design preferences  Both formats are visually appealing to different groups  Both formats are easier to scan according to different groups  Format depends on company’s image & personality  HTML protocol & e-mail applications’ inconsistencies - AOL  Text convenient for those readers that need specific information and don’t care about format © 2003 L-Soft
    44. 44. HTML vs. Text issues Size of message  Larger size for HTML than for text only messages  HTML with embedded images is larger than with referenced images  Slows transmission and download time for dial-up connection users  Recommended maximum size of an e-mail message is 15k-20k to not alert mail watcher software © 2003 L-Soft
    45. 45. HTML vs. Text issues © 2003 L-Soft
    46. 46. HTML vs. Text issues Tracking recipient behavior © 2003 L-Soft
    47. 47. HTML vs. Text issues Tracking recipient behavior  HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus, frequency, date, time, personal data and demographics © 2003 L-Soft
    48. 48. HTML vs. Text issues Tracking recipient behavior  HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus, frequency, date, time, personal data and demographics  Same tracking capabilities available for text messages BUT doesn’t include open-up tracking © 2003 L-Soft
    49. 49. HTML vs. Text issues Tracking recipient behavior  HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus, frequency, date, time, personal data and demographics  Same tracking capabilities available for text messages BUT doesn’t include open-up tracking © 2003 L-Soft
    50. 50. HTML vs. Text issues Tracking recipient behavior  HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus, frequency, date, time, personal data and demographics  Same tracking capabilities available for text messages BUT doesn’t include open-up tracking User reading e-mail online or offline © 2003 L-Soft
    51. 51. HTML vs. Text issues Tracking recipient behavior  HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus, frequency, date, time, personal data and demographics  Same tracking capabilities available for text messages BUT doesn’t include open-up tracking User reading e-mail online or offline  HTML messages with referenced images, will not display correctly when read off-line © 2003 L-Soft
    52. 52. HTML vs. Text issues Tracking recipient behavior  HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus, frequency, date, time, personal data and demographics  Same tracking capabilities available for text messages BUT doesn’t include open-up tracking User reading e-mail online or offline  HTML messages with referenced images, will not display correctly when read off-line  Network firewalls sometimes strip HTML messages that contain links to outside sources © 2003 L-Soft
    53. 53. Evaluate options © 2003 L-Soft
    54. 54. Evaluate options  HTML & Text: • Offer two separate mailing lists if possible • Provide recipient with alternative at registration © 2003 L-Soft
    55. 55. Evaluate options  HTML & Text: • Offer two separate mailing lists if possible • Provide recipient with alternative at registration  HTML only • Text-only recipients are not reached • Test how message is viewed in different e-mail clients • Attach images? Or reference web site? © 2003 L-Soft
    56. 56. Evaluate options  HTML & Text:  Send multi-part messages • Offer two separate mailing lists if possible • Provide recipient with alternative at registration  HTML only • Text-only recipients are not reached • Test how message is viewed in different e-mail clients • Attach images? Or reference web site? © 2003 L-Soft
    57. 57. Evaluate options  HTML & Text:  Send multi-part messages • Offer two separate • Providing alternative for mailing lists if possible those who cannot read html • Provide recipient with alternative at registration  HTML only • Text-only recipients are not reached • Test how message is viewed in different e-mail clients • Attach images? Or reference web site? © 2003 L-Soft
    58. 58. Evaluate options  HTML & Text:  Send multi-part messages • Offer two separate • Providing alternative for mailing lists if possible those who cannot read html • Provide recipient with • “Sniffing” technology is alternative at registration not an established e-mail protocol therefore is not  HTML only reliable • Text-only recipients are not reached • Test how message is viewed in different e-mail clients • Attach images? Or reference web site? © 2003 L-Soft
    59. 59. Evaluate options  HTML & Text:  Send multi-part messages • Offer two separate • Providing alternative for mailing lists if possible those who cannot read html • Provide recipient with • “Sniffing” technology is alternative at registration not an established e-mail protocol therefore is not  HTML only reliable • Text-only recipients are not reached  Text only • Test how message is viewed in different e-mail clients • Attach images? Or reference web site? © 2003 L-Soft
    60. 60. Evaluate options  HTML & Text:  Send multi-part messages • Offer two separate • Providing alternative for mailing lists if possible those who cannot read html • Provide recipient with • “Sniffing” technology is alternative at registration not an established e-mail protocol therefore is not  HTML only reliable • Text-only recipients are not reached  Text only • Reaches entire audience • Test how message is viewed in different e-mail clients • Attach images? Or reference web site? © 2003 L-Soft
    61. 61. Evaluate options  HTML & Text:  Send multi-part messages • Offer two separate • Providing alternative for mailing lists if possible those who cannot read html • Provide recipient with • “Sniffing” technology is alternative at registration not an established e-mail protocol therefore is not  HTML only reliable • Text-only recipients are not reached  Text only • Reaches entire audience • Test how message is viewed in different e-mail • Cut text at 60 characters clients • Attach images? Or reference web site? © 2003 L-Soft
    62. 62. Evaluate options  HTML & Text:  Send multi-part messages • Offer two separate • Providing alternative for mailing lists if possible those who cannot read html • Provide recipient with • “Sniffing” technology is alternative at registration not an established e-mail protocol therefore is not  HTML only reliable • Text-only recipients are not reached  Text only • Reaches entire audience • Test how message is viewed in different e-mail • Cut text at 60 characters clients • Message can be creatively designed and easy to scan • Attach images? Or reference web site? © 2003 L-Soft
    63. 63. Recommendations 1. There is no right or wrong format 2. Determine internal capacity & needs 3. It is all about your recipients: survey them about desired format 4. Consider ISPs’ anti-virus and anti-spam measures – AOL, MSN, Earthlink measures -- which are DYNAMIC 5. Consider personal anti-spam applications 6. Test, test, test © 2003 L-Soft
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×